Posts

This article in the Indy has some interesting views on how Brexit has affected the Uk's response to Covid.
https://www.independent.co.uk/voices/coronavirus-lockdown-government-death-toll-boris-johnson-a9551516.html

Small attachment to an iPhone that cost £288.00.
I know anything that relates to Apple can be very expensive, but what was the attachment ?
Did you return the attachment product in its original packaging ?
How often do you buy products from Amazon ?
How often do you return products to Amazon ?
Could Amazon believe you are buying products to simply try out for a period, with no intention of keeping the products ?

So I make a post and ask you some questions and you then go in and make a response which deals with something completely different and which ignores the questions which I have asked completely.
I don't see how we can move forward on that basis

Thank you.
First of all, this is not chronology so we don't have any sense of the timeline.
It's still rather complicated – but maybe when you produce a chronology it will come more into focus.
However, there are a few things that we can start to tease out.
You say that you accepted £250 in an offer which was intended to reflect distress. Although you say that you accepted this offer mistakenly, it may well be that you have no further rights on this issue because of course it would have been up to you to understand the situation properly before accepting any kind of financial offer.
However, it would be useful to understand the reach of this offer and so please could you post up the offer letter by uploading it in PDF format.
You say that "high-volume messaging" is not explicitly covered in the terms and conditions – but there may be references to "fair use policy" and it may be an interpretive problem rather than looking for words which specifically match your situation. So it will be helpful to know what words Vodafone were relying upon and also what was the extent of your high-volume messaging. Did they give you any warnings.
You say that they referred to terms and conditions which you did not sign. However, it isn't necessary to sign terms and conditions. We would have to understand more about the context – but generally speaking if there is an agreement which refers to terms and conditions from the outset and you then embark upon the agreement and use the services, then all the signs would be that you've accepted the conditions of use. Signed written terms and conditions are generally speaking only required in contracts for property or copyright or shares.
You say that the contract was put in your sole name despite the fact that the company name was on the agreement. We don't have a chronology so we don't see how long this went on for and you don't explain why you didn't raise any objections to this – or maybe you did?
You say that you have sent Vodafone and Lowell an SAR but "so far" you are waiting for a response. This suggests that you sent the SAR some time ago – but you haven't told us anything about when this might have happened.
You are referring to obligations under the Consumer Rights Act but I'm afraid that these obligations refer to contracts between a trader and a consumer – and you are not trading as a consumer so these probably wouldn't apply to you.
Finally, you are worried about expressing a claim in legal language. If you begin a small claim then you certainly don't need any legal language – and in fact that kind of approach simply gets in the way. Also, it seems to me that you are gearing up to bring a court claim – which is fine, in my book – but you haven't identified your cause or causes of action and you don't have a plan.
I think we need to slow down and have a more careful and methodical look at the situation. Otherwise you're simply going to find yourself in trouble

Late to this, sorry - my wife claims contributory ESA and got her P60 about two weeks ago. Now I know she's overpaid on her tax and I'm just waiting for HMRC (the department I currently work for) to figure it out. They owe her about £150.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

In principle I would say that a "non-refundable" deposit would be unenforceable other than to the extent that it reflects their actual administrative losses. Five months notice seems to be a long time – and extremely adequate.

All attribution rights and moral rights in my copyright work are asserted

Advice & opinions of BankFodder, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

I was told because we cancelled without any good reason (other than we decided we didn’t have time to plan it!). I’ve subsequently had a ski accident so am waiting for 2 ops on my knee plus c-19 so obviously the right decision. I’ll try s75 again.

Share this post

Link to post

Share on other sites

You should explain to them that under the unfair terms provisions of the Consumer Rights Act, they are not entitled to levy any kind of sum unless it reflects their administrative expenses. They are unable to justify a "loss" of £500 in respect of notice given to them five months in advance and in fact they are opportunistically using the virus crisis which has prevented them from re-letting the venue in order to justify them recouping their losses from you.
Draw their attention specifically to schedule 2 clause 5A of the 2015 Act

which contemplates precisely the kind of circumstances that you find yourself in now.

Tell the bank that if they will not respect their obligations under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act that once you have successfully sued the wedding company for breach of their Consumer Rights Act obligations you will then turn your attention to the question of unfair treatment by the bank which itself is a breach of statutory duty and contrary to the Banking: Conduct of Business Regulations 2009 and that you are prepared to bring a legal action in respect of their unfair treatment of you.

If the bank proposes that you go to the ombudsman you should decline and say to them that you will be looking to court action. The bank would prefer you to go to the ombudsman, and if you haven't figured it out, that means that your best interests are to go to court.

The banks are always reluctant to uphold chargebacks or to make refunds under section 75 of the Consumer Credit Act – and you will have to be polite but persistent. If you going to do this on the telephone – then record your calls and confirm everything which has been discussed in writing. You should read our customer services guide and implement the advice there.

Which credit card provider are you dealing with? Whoever it was who told you that there has to be "a good reason" is making it up as they go along. Could it be Barclays by chance?

All attribution rights and moral rights in my copyright work are asserted

Advice & opinions of BankFodder, The Consumer Action Group and The Bank Action Group are offered informally & without liability. Use your own judgment. Seek advice of a qualified insured professional if you have any doubts.